Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/18/2004 03:05 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 353-JURY DUTY EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN TEACHERS
Number 1543
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 353, "An Act relating to jury duty; and amending
Rule 15(k), Alaska Rules of Administration."
Number 1554
REPRESENTATIVE MARY KAPSNER testified as sponsor of HB 353. She
explained that this bill allows for teachers whose schools fall
under the designation of not meeting adequate yearly progress
(AYP) under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) to be exempt
from jury duty. She commented that she knows the members are
aware of the fact that all teachers are now required to be
highly qualified teachers. This adds an extra burden because
substitute teachers most often are not highly qualified
teachers. In many cases it is difficult to find teachers who at
the minimum have a high school diploma. Representative Kapsner
told the members that it is her hope that one day this will not
be a concern because all of Alaska's schools will be meeting AYP
and teachers will not be exempted.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER explained that the Lower Kuskokwim School
District brought this problem to her attention. Bethel has the
third busiest court system after Anchorage and Fairbanks, she
said. Residents in Bethel and 11 villages in a 50-mile radius
are asked to come in to participate in jury duty. Until this
year jury duty meant three months of service and four months for
grand jury. The court system has been helpful in working with
the communities to shorten the required length of time in
serving on jury duty, she added.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER told the members that from September 1 to
December 15, 2003, the Lower Kuskokwim School District's payroll
records show 107.5 days that its teachers were out of the
classroom performing jury duty. She added that most of those
schools are not meeting AYP.
CHAIR WILSON asked what the requirements are for persons serving
as substitute teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER responded that requirements for
substitute teaching is up to the individual school districts.
She added that it is not necessary to be a certified teacher.
In the Lower Kuskokwim School District the minimum requirements
is that substitute teachers have a high school diploma.
Representative Kapsner added that it can be difficult to find
someone in the village who is available to substitute.
Sometimes substitutes are 19 year-olds who just graduated the
year before.
Number 1685
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that his trip to Kipnuk was
enlightening. He told the members that it could be days of
waiting to get in or out of a village for jury duty. With AYP
requirements this can be a real strain on the school district.
Representative Gatto said he supports this bill.
Number 1721
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if it is necessary to reference
public law [on page 1, line 5 and 7] where it says:
(b) A person may claim exemption and may be excused
from service as a juror if it is shown that the person
is a teacher in a school that has failed to make
adequate yearly progress under P.L. 107-110.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if this reference is for definition
purposes only.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER replied that she is unsure, and asked if
the bill drafter is in the committee room.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the next committee of referral
is the House Judiciary Standing Committee and suggested that the
question could be addressed in that committee. He said he does
understand the need for teachers in these circumstances to be
excused. However, he struggles with the idea that if he were an
accused person who knew that a certain segment of society would
be excused from jury duty, he might feel that it would be
necessary to appeal for a trial outside of that area.
Representative Coghill asked Representative Kapsner if she has
consider that scenario.
Number 1791
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER replied that she has looked at that
situation. She emphasized that this bill is not an effort to
allow a particular group to shirk its civic duty. In looking at
the problem Representative Kapsner said she really tried to
balance the stress that is put on the schools and the students
and the burden it would place on the court system. She
explained that one theory she has is that in many cases teachers
would not be a jury of their peers. For instance, if most of
the teachers are first or second year Alaskan citizens from the
Lower-48 those teachers [are not peers of rural residents]. She
said she understands that most attorneys would like to have a
teacher in the jury pool because of the education level and
language level that brings to the jury. Representative Kapsner
noted that not all teachers are from out of state or out of the
region, in fact, many teachers have been in the villages for 20
years or more.
Number 1860
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that there could be schools in
the Anchorage School District that are not meeting AYP.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER agreed that every district has schools
which do not meet AYP.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to the term "may" [on page 1,
line 5] that says:
(b) A person may claim exemption and may be excused
from service as a juror ... .
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that he is concerned about that
language.
Number 1894
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER emphasized that it is her goal that this
will not even be an issue for very long. As soon as schools
reach AYP, then this would not be an issue. Even if a teacher
may be called to jury duty it creates a lot of stress within the
school district. She emphasized that this legislation is one
thing that can be done to help the schools.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that he appreciates what
Representative Kapsner is saying and will likely vote to pass
the bill from committee. He said he has to ask about the guy
who runs the generator, the Village Public Safety Officer, or
the only Alaska State Trooper, all of whom may be the only ones
who are available for their duty. Representative Coghill said
he assumes the court system will take all of that into account.
He summarized that he is concerned with the many jobs where
there is little or no backup, and questioned whether all of them
should be exempted from jury duty.
Number 1982
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented that there are nine school
months in the year, so theoretically there are another three
months that teachers could be called to jury duty. She
emphasized that it is important for the members to prioritize
what is important. She stated that she believes it is important
to keep the commitments to the schools by keeping the teachers
in the classroom to ensure that the policy that is already in
place is then met.
Number 2019
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that maybe this questions would
be better addressed in the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
He said he wants to make sure that when the bill refers to
"teachers" it is referring to "classroom teachers". He pointed
out that a principal could be a teacher and not be a classroom
teacher. It is certainly possible for the principal to leave
town and not have it impact the classroom. Another important
point would be to specify that the exemption is good for only
the school term. Representative Gatto agreed with
Representative Cissna's comments that teachers should not be
given a "free pass" during the summer months. Perhaps teachers
should be given a delay in serving on jury duty rather than an
exemption.
CHAIR WILSON commented that in earlier discussion in the House
Special Committee on Education there was a suggestion that some
language should be inserted that clarified that only schools
that were off the road system would qualify. For example, she
said she believes it is a lot easier to find substitute teachers
in Anchorage as opposed to a village. She asked if other
members have any thoughts on this point.
Number 2078
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER replied that she believes it would be
important to talk with administrations from some of the larger
school districts because it is her understanding that finding
substitute teachers is a problem for those districts as well.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that when the bill gets to the
House Judiciary Standing Committee there will be talk of the law
of general applicability. If this exemption is good for one
community, it is good for all of them since this bill is really
in response to the AYP requirements and the hardship jury duty
service incurs. For example, Tok, Dot Lake, or even North Pole
could experience some of the same problems communities not on
the road system have, he said.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Alaska Court System,
testified on HB 353 and answered questions from the members. In
response to the question by Representative Coghill on language
which refers to "may," he said he read that language to mean it
is the discretion of the teacher to ask for an exemption from
jury duty. For example, judges are exempt from jury duty, but
some choose to be seated as jurors. He suggested if the members
wish to make that language clear it should be run by the drafter
for clarification.
Number 2197
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that he believes the language
should be clarified. He said he would like to see judges have
discretion.
MR. WOOLIVER commented that there are many other important
community professions that serve an important function and whose
absence may have a detrimental effect on a community if they are
called away to jury duty. He told the members that Alaska
Statutes use to have a long list of professions that could be
exempted. For example, a public health nurse, use to be exempt
if he/she is the only health care professional in a town. Mr.
Wooliver told the members that anyone who is called for jury
duty can automatically defer service for up to ten months. In
particular hardship cases, he said, individuals have been
excused for a particular call.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that if it is the wish of the
legislature that an individual claim that exemption, then the
language should be "to be excused" rather than "may be excuse".
He commented that he would like to give the judge discretion,
and wondered if the House Judiciary Standing Committee might be
better at devising the language for this.
CHAIR WILSON agreed with Representative Coghill's comments that
it is important to give the judge discretion.
Number 2326
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked Mr. Wooliver how many judges he
believes would look at the discretionary language and say
teachers should not be exempt.
MR. WOOLIVER responded that he does not know. He said he
believes judges would look at this as a preference that the
legislature wishes these teachers be given an exemption from
jury duty. Mr. Wooliver pointed out that some judges could look
at the language and be unclear as to whether this is a
redundancy in the sentence or whether this is really granting
the judge discretion to deny the exemption.
Number 2330
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL told the members an amendment could be
made [on page 1, line 5] after the word "excused" insert the
words "by the court". He noted that the language may not be the
exact wording that should be used.
TAPE 04-20, SIDE B
Number 2349
MR. WOOLIVER suggested another option which would be to delete
the second "may" [on page 1, line 5]. He said that would take
away the discretion, but it would clearly say that the teacher
could claim an exemption and be excused from service.
Number 2330
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved Amendment 1 as follows:
On Page 1, Line 5, after "exemption and"
Delete "may"
Number 2307
CHAIR WILSON objected for purposes of discussion. She pointed
out that by removing "may" from this sentence the wording would
read as follows:
(b) A person may claim exemption and be excused from
service as a juror ... .
CHAIR WILSON pointed out that language would automatically give
teachers an exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he believes the first "may" in the
sentence handles the issue. He said he believes that the
language is clear by removing the second "may" in the sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that he does not want to hold
the bill up over this issue; however, there needs to be
clarification that there is some discretion by the judge. He
pointed out that the next committee of referral is the House
Judiciary Standing Committee and believes that committee could
more appropriately address the question.
Number 2253
CHAIR WILSON agreed that she will have a discussion with the
House Judiciary Standing Committee chair to address the issue of
court discretion.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA told the members that it is her opinion
that the highest priority in this issue is addressing the needs
of students who are having a hard time reaching AYP. She said
she does not believe that the courts should have a higher value
in this particular instance.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he agrees that students are a high
priority, but constitutionally [a defendant's] right to a fair
trial is also a high priority and that is his reason for
suggesting the need for some judicial discretion.
MR. WOOLIVER said that he believes his earlier suggestion of
removing the second "may" [on page 1, line 5] removes the
discretion by the courts. Judges do currently have the
discretion of providing a teacher with an exemption if a teacher
says there is a burden.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL commented that he believes his earlier
suggestion of inserting [on page 1, line 5] the words "by the
court" after the word "excused" would be clarifying language.
The language would read as follows:
(b) A person may claim exemption and may be excused by
the court from service as a juror ... .
MR. WOOLIVER urged the committee to be sure to tell the court
what the members want it to know.
CHAIR WILSON said she believes the language could be read in two
different ways.
Number 2083
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL withdrew Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt Amendment 2, as follows:
On Page 1, Line 5, after "excused"
Insert "by the court"
Number 2064
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA objected to Amendment 2. She told the
members that she prefers that the highest priority remain the
welfare of the students.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill, Gatto,
Wolf, and Wilson voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives
Cissna and Kapsner voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 was
adopted by a vote of 4-2.
Number 1960
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved Amendment 3 [later conceptual
Amendment 3], as follows:
On Page 1, Line 7
Delete "teacher has the meaning"
Insert "teacher means a person who serves a school
district in a teaching capacity and is required to be
certified in order to hold that position."
Number 1957
CHAIR WILSON objected to the motion for discussion purposes.
She agreed to strike the sentence and asked if it would be
better to simply say, "if it is shown that a person is a
classroom teacher in a school that has failed."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO responded that he is not sure, but the
current language has the definition of a "teacher as a person
who serves the school district in a teaching ... ." He stated
that he just wants to use the same language that is in statute.
CHAIR WILSON pointed out that part of the language would be left
out.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO replied that he would like to leave out the
part [of the definition] that refers to those who serve in
counseling or administrative capacities.
Number 1900
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER told the members that her father was a
principal and also a teacher in four schools. She commented
that most school districts are so strapped that many counselors
also teach.
Number 1882
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO agreed that is a good point. As long as an
individual is a teacher in the classroom, even if the individual
may have other jobs, that person would be exempt from jury duty.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO restated Amendment 3 [later conceptual
Amendment 3] as follows:
On Page 1, Line 7, after "in this subsection,"
Delete "teacher has the meaning"
Insert "teacher means a person who serves a school
district in a teaching capacity and is required to be
certified in order to hold the position."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he appreciate what Representative
Gatto is trying to achieve with this amendment. He suggested
that if court discretion is left in the bill, a judge would be
able to discern the level of need. He said he is opposed to the
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO replied that he is simply trying to place a
higher bar for an individual to be excused from jury duty
because he believes citizens have an obligation to serve. He
pointed out that Representative Kapsner's bill is trying to
defend the classroom by keeping the classroom teacher there.
The idea that there may be other positions which may merit
exemptions are separate issues.
The committee took an at-ease from 4:10 p.m. to 4:11 p.m.
Number 1749
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER suggested that Amendment 3 be changed to
a conceptual amendment to address the definition of a classroom
teacher.
Number 1722
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO restated his motion to adopt conceptual
Amendment 3, to define a teacher as a classroom teacher. There
being no objection, conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 1525
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved conceptual Amendment 4 to define the
term during the year when this exclusion would apply. He
suggested language be crafted that would define the time when
school is not in session for a week or longer.
CHAIR WILSON objected to the motion. She explained that jury
duty is not just one week of service; it is usually a month or
more.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that many teachers have to
take classes in the summer for recertification tests. He
reiterated the importance of court discretion.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said the original intent of the bill was to
deal with schools off of the road system. He commented that
every school has teachers that will be required to take special
classes. The intent of this bill, and the reason he supports
it, is the difficulty that occurs during the school year for
those teachers in rural areas. This exemption should not be
offered outside of the school year, he emphasized.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if a conceptual amendment could be
offered that inserts language that addresses the time during the
school year.
Number 1525
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO withdrew Amendment 4 and moved new
Amendment 4 to read:
Page 1, Line 4
After the word "juror"
Insert "during the school year"
CHAIR WILSON objected to the motion. She pointed out that many
of the teachers leave the area during the summer months.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cissna, Kapsner,
Gatto, and Wolf voted in favor of Amendment 4. Representatives
Wilson and Coghill voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 4 was
adopted by a vote of 4-2.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report HB 353 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, CSHB 353(HES) was report out
of House Health, Education and Social Services Standing
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|